Liondale Bleach, Dye & Paint Works v. Riker
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On certiorari to Morris Pleas. Petition under Workmen’s Compensation act. ■ The petitioner, after ten days’ service in the defendant’s bleachery, was affected with a rash, pronounced bjr the medical testimony to be a condition of eczema. One physician testified that this could be caused by acids. The trial judge thereupon found that the petitioner’s condition was caused by contact with the dampened goods. He then held that the condition was due to accident.
1Opinion of the Court
. The opinion of the court was delivered by
Swayze, J.
The proper definition of “accident,” within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation act, has been the subject of decision in several cases under the English statute and we cannot do better than review the most im*427portant. \Ye need not go back of Fenton v. Thorley & Co., Limited (1903), A. C. 443, since earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal were there overruled by the House of Lords. It was there held that a workman, employed to turn the wheel of a machine, who ruptured himself by au act of overexertion, suffered an injury by accident.…
2Cited by29 opinions
- City of San Francisco v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
- Tintic Milling Co. v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1922
- Aistrop v. Blue Diamond Coal Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1943
- Hancock v. HallidayIdaho Supreme Court · 1943
- Stepnowski v. Specific Pharmaceuticals, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.